2
The process allows professionals to consider the extent to which the familys resources meet the needs of the child In depth assessment of both the child and the potential adopters. The E Form* The F Form* Current Matching Procedure Matching report* Applicants approved as adopters Child approved for adoption Panel approves match* Match is made

3
Completed a detailed audit of all the matches made between April 2003 and April 2005 (n=116). Looked at all the E forms, F forms, matching reports and panel minutes. Collected Social Worker ratings using a Likert scale. 185 variables in total, which gave a pen picture of the people involved, and the way forms are used Statistical analysis to look for significant & predictive factors. Method

8
The F Form: Applicants Family make up Culture Medical information Family history Social networks Personal references Values and beliefs Parenting experiences Motivations to adopt

9
The Applicants 49% are in their thirties 56% had been together over 10 years 96% applied as a couple 31% have birth children (often of one parent) 21% have an adopted or foster child already Not being able to conceive was the dominant motivating factor for 78% of the applicants, the rest adopt for moral reasons. 41% wanted to adopt a single child, 51% up to two, 8% up to three children 65% wanted an infant if possible Gender did not matter to 77% of adopters Contact with birth parents was seen as off-putting

11
Observations References and applicants only focus on strengths (70% dont explore weaknesses) Facts not interpretation or reflection (eg again little about impact of own relationships) Matching reports explore –Cultural/religious differences75% –Physical demands of parenting45% –Emotional demands vs needs63% –Support structure around applicants66% –Level of professional support needed71% –Emotional demands of the children67% –Attachment history of the child44% –Attachment history of the applicants20%

12
Type of Match The way the match is made is not a significant predictors of success (Χ 2 =3.02, p=0.07) There is a trend for project matches to be more difficult, but significantly more complex/older children involved (ANOVA: project matched children are older p<0.0005 and later removed p<0.0005)

13
Adopters Motive Adopters motive is also not a significant predictor of success (Χ 2 =3.30, p=0.07) There is a trend for moral adoptions to be more difficult, but significantly more complex/older children are involved (ANOVA: moral adopters take older children p=0.01 with more behavioural problems p<0.0005 and emotional/mental health difficulties p=0.004)

15
Results of Correlation with Placement Success Rating Analysis Adopters have birth childrenp<0.0005 Applicants have social supportp=0.011 Applicants support each otherp=0.001 Applicants prepared to make major lifestyle changesp=0.011 Social Workers confidence about the match*p<0.0005 Social Workers rating of adopters engagement with profs*p<0.0005 Social Workers rating of how challenging child is*p<0.0005 * retrospective, so unclear how objective these ratings are

16
Univariate Analysis Results of Factorial ANOVAs If the child is youngerp<0.0005 If the child has had less prior placements p=0.007 If adopters evidence strong social support networksp=0.003 If adopters evidence mutual support/respectp=0.004 If adopters are prepared to make major lifestyle changesp<0.0005 If the Social Worker felt confident about the match*p<0.0005 If the Social Worker felt the adopters engaged with profs*p=0.016 If the child was removed from the birth family youngerp=0.014 If applicants recognise both strengths and weaknesses in each otherp=0.018 MATCHES WERE MORE SUCCESSFUL:

17
If the childs birth mother had grown up in Carep=0.006 If the childs birth mother had been in trouble with policep=0.036 If the childs birth mother was in a violent relationshipp=0.012 If the child had been harmed by birth parentsp<0.0005 If there were health concerns about the childp=0.005 If there were emotional/mental health concerns p<0.0005 If adopters have birth childrenp=0.002 If a prior placement broke down due to the childs behaviourp=0.002 If applicant 1 has physical health problemsp=0.010 Univariate Analysis MATCHES WERE LESS SUCCESSFUL: Results of Factorial ANOVAs

20
Interpretation of Regression Forcing age as first variable accounts for 18.5% of variance Adding other variables listed accounts for 49.5% of variance Risk and resilience relates to both adopters and children, in a complex interplay We match pretty well – 53% highly successful, 28% successful and 10% unsuccessful, 8% undecided